DCRDC Holds UCO Bank Liable For Failing To Pay Security Amount Even After 21 Years

DCRDC Holds UCO Bank Liable For Failing To Pay Security Amount Even After 21 Years

Orders it to pay the complainant Rs. 25,000 for the Kuber Scheme certificate, compensation of Rs. 25,000, along with Rs.5,000 as litigation cost

The Hooghly, West Bengal, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has held UCO Bank liable for deficiency in services for failing to pay the security amount on maturity to the complainants even after 21 years.

The complainants were account holders with UCO Bank and opened a locker, purchasing a Kuber Yojana Deposit Scheme certificate of Rs.25,000. It matured on 02 December 2003 and served as security for the locker.

The complainants informed the bank’s branch manager in writing of their inability to continue with the locker and requested its closure. They did not withdraw or encash the matured deposit certificate, which left the amount with the bank.

Following the locker's closure, they repeatedly approached the bank to retrieve the certificate's matured value, but the branch manager stalled the move. Meanwhile, their written complaint to the branch manager was acknowledged by the bank.

However, the bank’s chief manager stated the bank’s inability to determine the status of the deposit and pursue the matter.

Thereafter, the complainants contacted the zonal manager and sought clarity on the status of the certificate and the return of its matured value. On not receiving a satisfactory response, they complained to the banking ombudsman detailing the irregularities concerning their deposit under the Kuber Scheme.

Seven months of silence later, the banking ombudsman emailed them, informing them that the bank claimed to have paid the deposit proceeds. However, no supporting documents were provided about the 14 years of correspondence. The ombudsman then closed the case.

Aggrieved by the situation, the complainants approached the DCDRC and filed a complaint against the bank.

UCO Bank argued that the complainants initiated legal action in 2018 to falsely establish the timeliness of their complaint. They failed to provide evidence or documents proving their grievances that were raised within two years of closing the locker account. The deposit matured on 02 December 2003 and was closed on 27 February 2004. The complainants raised the issue after 15 years.

The bench of Debasish Bandyopadhyay (President), Babita Choudhuri (Member) and Debasis Bhattacharya (Member) observed that under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint could be entertained even after two years if the complainant had sufficient reason for the delay. It held that there was a valid cause of action, and, under Section 2(1)(d), the complainant was a consumer.

The DCDRC stated that the complainants proved through affidavits and supporting documents that the fixed deposit under the Kuber Scheme, used as security for the locker, was not paid despite maturity. It noted the bank’s failure to produce any evidence to prove the complainants were paid the matured value.

Thus, the Commission held the bank liable for deficiency in services. UCO Bank was ordered to pay the complainants the fixed deposit scheme amount with interest. It was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000 along with litigation costs of Rs.5,000 to the complainants.